TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Why Proof of Stake?

45 pointsby alokraiover 4 years ago

6 comments

TYPE_FASTERover 4 years ago
I really enjoyed reading the original Bitcoin whitepaper. It described complicated concepts in clear, simple terms. It just made sense to me.<p>Are there other whitepapers in the distributed ledger space that are similar, from a readability perspective? Any insight would be appreciated.<p>Thanks in advance!
评论 #25007955 未加载
nikiviover 4 years ago
Why is bitcoin price surging so high when Ethereum exists and seems like a superior technology? Is it because Ethereum is slower and more expensive?
评论 #25007933 未加载
评论 #25007766 未加载
评论 #25007907 未加载
评论 #25007591 未加载
评论 #25009099 未加载
评论 #25007797 未加载
评论 #25006947 未加载
trompover 4 years ago
&gt; Proof of stake is more like a &quot;closed system&quot;, leading to higher wealth concentration over the long term<p>Unlike Proof of Work, Proof of Stake is not a coin distribution method. PoS-only block chains just create all initial coins out of thin air, like a 100% ICO, which is the worst possible concentration of wealth.
评论 #25009410 未加载
nullcover 4 years ago
Proof of Stake offers precisely zero security in the context of decentralized systems unless you already have a consensus system: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;download.wpsoftware.net&#x2F;bitcoin&#x2F;pos.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;download.wpsoftware.net&#x2F;bitcoin&#x2F;pos.pdf</a><p>Advocates of it have responded to fact of PoS&#x27;s tautological security by applying seemingly unending amounts of complexity, essentially obfuscating their design until people give up reviewing it. Cryptographic security against review is not cryptographic security, it is the opposite of it.<p>At best these schemes have security that reduces to the underlying consensus mechanism that they&#x27;re running on top of (which usually ends up being some not-at-all-decenteralized system like the Ripple UNL, where all participants must accept a consistent set of authorities or it will eventually fail to converge), but they can do worse than that-- and often do, as a result of vulnerabilities that come out of the obfuscation.<p>Vitalik Buterin isn&#x27;t a stranger to making deceptive claims: Before he created this technobabble laden massively pre-mined altcoin, and dumped it on an unsophisticated public while misleading them about its properties, he was primarily known to me as some kid that got banned from the Bitcoin chat channels by driving people nuts trying to solicit people to invest in his sham &quot;Quantum Miner&quot; project.<p>If by chance these systems act in a secure manner in practice -- e.g. they successfully operate as a centralized consensus and the central authorities remain benign -- their economics lock in massive ongoing revenue streams for their prior participants. Especially in the context of a system which pre-mined some 72 million coins most of which are illiquid held by a small number of parties-- as selling them would completely collapse the market-- the result is a tremendous rent-seeking windfall.<p>In fact, when Vitalik made the decision to edit the ethereum ledger to claw-back funds taken from himself and others as the result of the technically-correct (but surprising) execution of &quot;DAO&quot; smart contract, part of the justification given was that if the funds were not taken back the system couldn&#x27;t make its impending transition to POS (now delayed for years) because POS would benefit the &quot;hacker&quot;. So it isn&#x27;t surprising to see continued efforts towards that model from the persons who most stand to gain from it, even after years of delays and failure. Nor is it surprising that this article extols greater ease at editing the ledger (&quot;recover from attacks&quot;) through processes external to the rules of the system as a purported _benefit_ of the proposed insecure mechanism. It&#x27;s not that unusual to see a security weaknesses spun as advantages, but it is unusually audacious and self-serving in this case.<p>There are plenty of systems in the world which are perfectly happy with a distributed-but-centralized security model as they can have robust and clear security properties within the scope of their limitations. People should be happy to use them where they fit their needs. I don&#x27;t think the world benefits from having more systems with security models obfuscated by pretending to be strongly decentralized when they are not, no matter how many benefits can be derived from not being decentralized.
评论 #25009046 未加载
qertoipover 4 years ago
Why Proof of Work and not Proof of Stake?<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;hugonguyen.medium.com&#x2F;work-is-timeless-stake-is-not-554c4450ce18" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;hugonguyen.medium.com&#x2F;work-is-timeless-stake-is-not-...</a>
treelovinhippieover 4 years ago
To further speculate gains for early adopters.<p>Signed, the new wannabe financial oligarchy.
评论 #25008764 未加载